I have no problem with the confederate flag as a memorial to confederate war dead. Most of those boys fought and died for their homes, neighbors, and states - just like most of the boys from the north did. Just like most German soldiers did in WWII. The higher notions and dastardly deeds may have been the cause of the war, but 95% of GI Joes from any side had little do do with it.

But this is the confederate flag:

What they want to do is march with the battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia, which has taken on a post-war meaning unrelated to honoring the war dead of the confederacy. It wasn't a popular symbol in the United States after the civil war under those pesky black people kept trying to vote down south. It's primary purpose now is to show racism, defiance against the United States, or as a pop culture marker for a particular sub-group (mostly "rednecks").

I highly doubt the group called "Confederate Lives Matter" truly wishes to honor confederate war dead. Hell, they may not actually understand what the confederacy was. I'm going with they probably don't really understand.

Millions of Americans see the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of human on human attrocity and bigotryMillions of Jewish people see the Nazi flag as a symbol of human on human attrocity and bigotry

We find one repugnant and we look at the other with a shrug? It needs to be relegated to museums and it has no place in a Veteran's Day Parade. This group knows exactly what they are doing.

Then, using your words, we should ban most every state flag as they are "a symbol of human on human attrocity and bigotry" against all the native Americans that were slaughtered and displaced in advancing the development of the US.

Millions of Americans see the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of human on human attrocity and bigotryMillions of Jewish people see the Nazi flag as a symbol of human on human attrocity and bigotry

We find one repugnant and we look at the other with a shrug? It needs to be relegated to museums and it has no place in a Veteran's Day Parade. This group knows exactly what they are doing.

When I hear someone making the "flag of slavery" argument, I always ask "Which flag, the one that flew over a slavery nation for four years, or the one that flew over a slavery nation a hundred years before it?"The Civil War was fought for the same reasons as most any war: Economics.

Neither "states rights" nor "slavery" were the direct cause of the Civil War, though how slavery was treated in national policy was the central issue. From the time Lincoln took office until long after the Civil War began, the official policy of the U.S. Government and the political consensus of Congress and the Lincoln administration was that slavery would continue to be legal in the states in which it already existed but that slavery could not be extended into new territories. After the establishment of the CSA and the beginning of the war, slavery continued to be practiced in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland, slave states that remained in the Union, and the U.S. continued to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning escaped slaves to their Southern, rebel owners, until Union General Benjamin Butler came up with the novel idea of treating slaves as "contraband of war," i.e. property that could be held during hostilities.

Lincoln's belief was that slavery would eventually die out of its own accord.

A major issue leading up to the secession was that the secessionist states had insisted that their slave-holding citizens should be free to move to U.S. territories out west and continue to hold slaves there. The Northerners, wanting to "contain" rather than abolish slavery, would not agree, creating a Congressional stalemate. This was never a genuine a "states rights" issue since states don't ordinarily have the right to determine the policy of another state, Scott Pruitt's opinion notwithstanding. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come about until after Gettysburg and with much controversy. Notably, the Proclamation freed the slaves only in the rebel states and not in the slave states that had remained loyal to the Union. Keeping those states in the Union required some delicate political footwork. In a real sense, though, the Civil War was fought over the alternatives of containment and expansion of slavery.

Two good books to recommend: Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Nothing Like it in the World by Stephen Ambrose. The latter deals with the building of the transcontinental railroad. The route was greatly influenced by the issue of whether slavery could be expanded into the territories. In fact, Congress was unable to decide on a route until after secession because of that single issue.

Good discussion. Put me in that camp that asserts the impetus of almost all wars is primarily economics. If not the primary determinant, most likely the fuel to feed them.

The North had manufacturing, textiles and export. The south had agriculture. The north had concentrations of labor in the heavily populated cities. The south needed labor and preferred the free kind (slaves). Anything else was posturing or politics.

That's not a state flag, and the attempted cleansing of professional sports team names by the use of coercion, shaming and threats of lawsuits in the name of "political correctness" is an entirely different discussion.

An entirely different discussion which you felt the need to retort and then immediately shut down discussion on...

Lets rename the team the "Washington Nigg3rs" because DC used to be the largest slave trading center in the world! Or how about the "CHINKS"," the "WOPS," "SPICS," "KIKES," or the "HUNS?" Maybe just stick to skin colors and call them the "darkies" or "yellow skins?"

If the team wanted to name themselves those things, it is their right as a private company. But everyone would agree that they were trying to be offensive. Why is it different with the Redskins?

Even the dictionary entry to redskin identifies it as a derogatory or offensive term for Native Americans. By some accounts it is a term used to refer to the encouraged murder of Native Americans for profit. At best, it is a, erroneous reference to skin color.

And I'm not a big supporter of stripping native american team names. Braves, warriors, or even Indians, are all team names with the potential of being offensive. Certain of being stereotypes. But the FSU Seminoles certainly don't offend the legacy of the tribe. But Redskins? We can do better.- - - -

Regarding the Native American genocide referenced above - two points:

1) The American flag is not generally seen in the United States as a symbol of genocide, oppression, etc. Hence, displaying the flag is not generally held out as an attempt to symbolize oppression etc. Even to the vast majority of Native Americans, it does not have that meaning. Ergo, it is not analogous to the ISIS flag or even the Confederate Flag. Particularly in a parade to honor soldiers who fought for the American flag.

2) Native Americans were screwed over, mistreated, and murdered by the US government. But the real damage was done by disease. Many, many multitudes more natives died, and more damage was done by disease than could have been done by the most ill-meaning conquerors. By many estimates all the conflicts and massacres of (north) Native Americans resulted in less than 60k Native American deaths. Some estimates halve that number (this includes the colonist wars, French and Indian wars, forced removals [Trail of Tears, etc.], and the Indian Wars), and no one has the number of "whites" killed at above 15k.

That is not to excuse any behavior or make light of it, but I was surprised by the numbers when I read the study. 50k dead was a bad day in the civil war.

As an aside, and a tangent on a tangent, an alternate history where disease didn't wrack the Native population is an interesting exercise.

Hey, don't forget the derogatory names and characterizations of the Irish. Notably the Notre Dame "Fighting Irish". Or those native to Wales, used to describe "Welshing on a debt". Truth is many of our ancestors in America have not been fair to any minority. It is time to do some house cleaning instead of rationalizing.

Hey, don't forget the derogatory names and characterizations of the Irish. Notably the Notre Dame "Fighting Irish". Or those native to Wales, used to describe "Welshing on a debt". Truth is many of our ancestors in America have not been fair to any minority.

I've never met an Irishmen offending by the fighting Irish (my entire gaggle of in laws included), it is an "Irish American Catholic institution." While I understand the concern - the team was historically made of of Irishmen and they exhibited a fighting spirit. It is not meant to be a parody of drunk Irishmen fighting (where I would argue many Native American team names became that). They were originally just known as the "Catholics" and then "the Ramblers" before adopted the Fighting Irish in 1927. The president of Notre Dame served as the Chaplin to the Irish Brigade during the civil war. There is another origination story that a team was down to Northwestern at the half and the coach gave a talk where he said you guys are all Irish, wheres the fighting spirit? This was overheard by the press, who reported the come from behind victory as a win for the "Fighting Irish." Or so the stories go. Hence, if the college of the Cherokee wanted to call themselves the Braves and dance around in what-ever... I'd be hard pressed to call them racist.

to take thread drift to a whole new level -

If you want to see cultural confusion, look up Notre Dame v. Navy in Dublin, 2012. Irishmen trying to figure out why there is an American University named after a French Cathedral that calls itself the Irish while playing a confusing sport against a team from the United States military. This in a country that doesn't have football, a naval academy, or a tradition of (non olympic) intercollegiate athletics. Let alone such a tradition where 40,000 people would cross an ocean to watch the game.

I wasn't trying to "shut down" the thread, I was trying to draw a similarity between the use of the Confederate Flag as a representation of slavery and oppression (and it's form is and has been used in state flags) to the flags of individual states that were formed after treachery and oppression and the forced removal of native Americans from their home lands to advance the expansion of the United States. I was trying to keep this on topic. To me, trying to force a privately owned sports team because it's name is deemed offensive is not the same, and I as trying to avoid thread drift.

It went in front of our office. We were wondering the same thing. For the record, there were two people following the float along its way. One was a protester bellowing out stuff about Jesus and bullets dipped in pig blood over a megaphone, the other was a guy wearing a hot dog suit. No, I don't get it either.

They may have picked up other protesters along the way, but I doubt that anyone would voluntarily be associated with the bellower and the hot dog man.

Incidentally, Paul Tay rode by with a Marine flag on his bike. Did he serve?

Mission

&nbsp

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa
become the most vibrant, diverse,
sustainable and prosperous city of
our size. We achieve this by focusing
on the development of Tulsa's
distinctive identity and economic
growth around a dynamic, urban
core, complemented by a constellation
of livable, thriving communities." more...